by Zachary Q. Daniels – The latest installment in Adam Pollack’s series on the heavyweight champions explores the career of Tommy Burns, whose contribution to boxing’s history is frequently reduced to being the fighter who lost the title to Jack Johnson. As Pollack’s excellent book makes clear, Burns had an extensive career, stretching from 1902 to 1920, including many successful title defenses. He emerges as one of the more underrated heavyweight champions.
As usual, Pollack uses first-hand local newspaper accounts to give a detailed picture of the boxing career of this largely forgotten fighter. Pollack’s review of Burns’ career begins with his early fights under his given name of Noah Brusso, starting in 1902. These early fights in Michigan are reviewed, the most significant of which occurred against more experienced contender Mike Schreck in 1903, resulting in Burns’ first loss. The next year he fought a rematch with Schreck, ending in a draw which many observers thought Burns had won.
Not long after this, in October of 1904, Burns had the first of three fights with future light-heavyweight champion “Philadelphia” Jack O’Brien. In this fight, O’Brien won a 6-round decision. Later that year, Burns faced top middleweight contender Jack “Twin” Sullivan. While this fight ended in a 20-round draw, as Pollack’s research illustrates, many local observers felt that Burns deserved the decision.
Burns also engaged in a middleweight series with Hugo Kelly, the first bout ending in a 10-round draw, and the second ending in a 20-round draw. Kelly was a highly regarded middleweight contender with a claim to the title. In the first fight, the general feeling was that a draw was warranted; while in the second, most agreed that Burns deserved the nod, but for the fact that he had agreed to a draw if both were standing at the bout’s conclusion. As Pollack reports, “Burns’ stock went up with the draw decision, and he was treated as the victor.” He adds, “The Kelly fight made Burns a hot middleweight,” and there was talk of him challenging champion Tommy Ryan.
One of the interesting things from Pollack’s account of the second fight with Kelly is an accusation made by Jack Root, who was acting as second for Kelly. Pollack reports, “Root examined Tommy’s bandages and objected to the plaster of Paris on them. Eventually, after a lengthy debate, Burns agreed to remove the plaster.” Given the recent controversies over Antonio Margarito’s alleged use of plaster on his handwraps, what is remarkable about this is that it appears to have generated comparatively little notice or controversy on the part of boxing fans or journalists, both at the time and subsequently. In fact, during this era, use of plaster was not always forbidden.
Burns’ next important bout, and his last of 1905, was a rematch with Jack Sullivan. Although Burns lost a clear decision, the fight was competitive and entertaining. Thus, Pollack observes that “even though Burns lost, his stock did not drop. He was the type of fighter the local fans wanted to see.”
It is at least in part due to Burns’ popularity and entertaining style that he obtained a shot at heavyweight champion Marvin Hart. Going into this fight, Burns was a decided underdog, and considerably smaller than the champion. As Pollack reports, “Clearly, the Hart faction saw this as an easy fight for a payday against a much smaller man…. After all, Burns was just a middleweight, and was coming off a loss.” Hart confidently predicted that he would dispose of Burns in “short order.” However, Burns’ backers were confident that he would last the distance against the hard-hitting Hart.
Interestingly, again there were questions concerning Burns’ handwraps. As Pollack observes, Hart’s trainer Tommy Ryan “objected to Burns’ bandages. Tommy had several layers of black adhesive tape over his knuckles.” The referee “ordered Burns to remove part of the bandages, but Tommy refused.” Finally, “[a]fter a long, tiresome wait, Hart gave in and the gloves were put on.”
Despite this issue, there was no controversy concerning the outcome of the fight, as Burns won virtually every round and was justifiably awarded the decision. As one report put it, “It was practically Burns all the way, and only in the twelfth and thirteenth rounds did Hart put up any kind of showing.” Hart came under substantial criticism for his performance in this fight, with one source referring to him as a “big stiff.” The winner also came under criticism, particularly for his holding tactics. As one source noted, Burns “made clinches so frequent that the bout resembled a wrestling match more than a scrap with gloves.”
As with later eras, the supposedly mediocre state of the heavyweight division was singled out for attack. As one source put it, the Burns-Hart fight “exploits the hopelessness of the heavyweight situation.” Similarity with later events in the sport can also be seen in the reaction of Hart’s supporters to his loss. Following the fight, the pre-eminent boxing publication of the time, the National Police Gazette, reported that “Hart’s friends declared that he had been drugged, for they could not account in any other way for his ridiculously weak performance.” Of course, nearly a century later, the same excuse would be offered for Vladimir Klitschko’s loss to Lamon Brewster.
While not accusing anyone of drugging him, Hart himself offered a litany of excuses, contending that “he was robbed by the referee, jobbed by the club, fouled by his opponent, and abused by the press.” He also singled out his trainer for criticism, suggesting that “[i]t was a deliberate frame-up. Ryan only boxed with me three times. He spent all his time with McCarey, who is a sort of manager for Burns.” In part in reaction to these accusations, there was for a time talk of a rematch, but likely owing to the one-sided nature of the initial fight, there wasn’t much demand for Burns-Hart II, and it never came off.
Burns’ next major bout was a fight with up and coming contender “Fireman” Jim Flynn. The fight turned out to be quite one-sided, with Burns winning all but two rounds leading up to a 15th round KO. Flynn was apparently “out cold for ten minutes.” However, the fight had been competitive, for as Pollack observes, “Tommy was considerably battered up though, and had been given one of the hardest battles of his career.”
This led into two important fights with “Philadelphia” Jack O’Brien. There had been some war of words between the two prior to the Flynn flight, with each fighter calling the other a ‘faker” and O’Brien suggesting, in reference to their first fight, “I could have put you away then and I believe I can do it again.” The second Burns-O’Brien fight was refereed by former champ James J. Jeffries, who declared it a 20-round draw. Burns, however, contended he won the fight, arguing, “I did all the forcing and had him covering from the blows most of the time. I was robbed.” Most agreed. Even Jeffries said that “had it been necessary that some decision be given; I would have given the benefit to Burns.”
Not surprisingly, this controversy led to demands for a rematch, so the third Burns-O’Brien fight was held the following year, in May of 1907. Unlike their previous two fights, this match resulted in a clear victory for Burns. Apparently, O’Brien had agreed to the fight only on the condition that he would be allowed to box his way to a clear victory, but Burns double crossed him. As Burns put it, O’Brien “would not enter the arena unless there was a previous agreement as to the outcome in which I was to ‘lie down’ and let him win.” Once it was clear that the fight was on the level, O’Brien basically ran away from Burns for most of the fight, and lost every round. As one journalist put it, this fight had “proved beyond question that Tommy Burns can beat O’Brien any day of the week.”
With his most serious challenger vanquished, and his claim to the title solidified, Burns began to take on international challengers, first Australia’s Bill Squires in a fight in the San Francisco area and then a series of oversees fights with men such as Gunner Moir, Jem Roche, and others, as well as Squires again twice in rematches. Burns won all these fights by KO, further cementing his claim as the World’s heavyweight champion. In total, after defeating Hart, Burns won thirteen more bouts, eleven by knockout.
During this time, and indeed almost as soon as he had won the title from Hart, there had been periodic discussion of a potential fight with black heavyweight contender Jack Johnson, who had established himself as one of the clear contenders for the title, despite his earlier loss to Marvin Hart (in 1905). Soon after winning the title, Burns had unequivocally indicated,
Clearly, Burns had a forward-thinking attitude on this, although not for altruistic or social justice reasons. Essentially, he wanted to fight as often as possible, against the best possible contenders, to make the most money while he was champion. And if that meant defending against black contenders, Burns was agreeable to it if the money was right. At one point, he considered taking a fight against black contender Sam McVey. True to form, Burns said, “I had made up my mind that I would fight only one negro – that’s Johnson – but I hate like the deuce to let this money get away from me.” Despite some discussion of holding such a fight in France, where McVey was popular, it never happened. As Pollack notes, the “negotiations fell through.” The French would not meet his financial demands.
This might have also been a ploy to raise the price for a Johnson fight, for Burns was at the same time (May 1908) negotiating with Jack Johnson. As the Los Angeles Herald put it, “He is the legitimate champion, and he is making good use of his title to bring in the shekels.” Burns wanted $30,000 to put his title on the line against Johnson. He argued, “All that is needed to fix the battle is Johnson’s signature, and that has yet to be obtained. My terms have been stated, and I will not alter them.” Later, he said, “I want to meet Johnson, firstly, to make it plain that I draw no color-line, nor bar any man in the world; and secondly, to establish that I am Johnson’s superior; and thirdly, to quit the game as champion of the world.”
Of course, as is well known, Burns accomplished only the first of those objectives. While Pollack, as is typical in his series, leaves detailed coverage of the title changing Johnson-Burns bout to his planned book on Johnson, he does put to rest the myths that Burns somehow “ran” from Johnson. Calling Burns a “shrewd businessman,” Pollack observes that he “held out for $30,000, and he got it.” And, as one contemporary source observed, “Burns is not afraid of Johnson, but he realizes that a match with the saffron streak would be worth more to him financially than any half a dozen fights in which he could engage, and he means to make the club that stages it stand a tap. And he is right as a fox, too.”
Not only did he not establish his superiority to Johnson, he also did not retire as champion, fighting on sporadically until 1920, but never again being a factor at the top levels of the game. However, as Pollack’s research shows, Burns was “a very good boxer and underrated fighter . . . who deserves more respect than that which history has afforded him.” Hopefully, Pollack’s work will lead to a much-needed reassessment of this fine champion by boxing fans and historians. It provides a wealth of detail on Burns’ fighting career that would otherwise be unavailable to most boxing fans, and therefore represents an important contribution to the history of the sport.